In encouraging people to make models that fit their particular psychology me make them use models that are rare or seldom threaded. This might give them illusory sense of uniqueness, they might not benefit or expect to benefit from the knowledge of others.
Coming up with their own models they might have unique problems that if we encourage to take their own constructions seriously they will have problems that we don’t have answers to. A geology teacher teaching that earth is round in some capacity needs to be able to deal with flat-earther talking-pint and fumble points. taking a positivde spin on this is “they make their own reserach questions” but making a bad spin is “we spend more time of doing it wrong in X ways rather than the known working ways”
If you’ve prided yourself on believing what the Great Teacher says—even when it seems harsh, even when you’d rather not—that may make it all the more bitter a pill to swallow, to admit that the Great Teacher is a fraud, and all your noble self-sacrifice was for naught.
I read it to be more about getting over your workedness to get to the goal.
Crying over the amount of spilt ink doesn’t have that much epistemic relevance. That your particle accelerator cost X million dollars doesn’t make it produce better data. Truth can be frustrating and unfair in that sense.
If a single naive person can say “The emperor has no clothes” and all the epistemics come falling down, maybe they should come falling down. With solid deconfusion even if a single authority figure says “I am not convinced” the solace from the work itself should be plenty.
This plea that the issue should be handled in the tone of seriousness seems like a bad application of social pressure. We shouldn’t need swearing on bibles. Using the role of constituting community beliefs as social-versus game value chips seems bad.
It would only say that you are such a 4d or 5d construct. It remains more nebolous to say what it feels like on the inside.
If you had a biological organism and then did a brain scan of their brains waited 1000 years and then downloaded the brain scan to a new biological brain then computationaly there would probably be a 1000 year gap in the experience. If there is non-computational aspect to conciousness one could think that there are separate consioucness experiencing the same computational state for the while the state is in “stasis”.
Given typical fysics the computational states of the 3d slices of the 4d and 5d objects would be synchornised enough to give “all at once” experiences.
While the time travel paradoxes are derived from the logical paradoxes, if you have a theory that unambigiously says what happens it can be contradiction free even if it has grandfather paradoxes. There can be theories wrong about how a game of Achron will go.
I primarily would just benefit from understanding the connection bit by bit. “round things look round” can seem simple because I understand stuff like blocked from sight objects not looking like anything and that a fisheye lense might exactly cancel the roundness of a round to to make it not round. I can calcuate paths that light rays take what kind of pictures form on retinas.
If one has a ontology strong enough to handle paradoxes one can have time flowlyness from non-copenhagen sources by having meta-time and meta-time evolution even if the (“historical”) time would “stay still”.
I might have mischaracterised what I had issues with (I don’t know whether it exactly matches to ask “We have a tree. If we would be tasked on how to make a tree how would we have done it? We would have made an acorn.”). You have knowledge that A->B,B->T,C->T, D->T and T and then you are asked why is T? So one might answer A because it is the “deepest” cause. In this kind of search you get something “more prior” but it is not clear why it didn’t branch into the C or D directions. And if we are asking a question “under which conditions does T obtain?” one would care about all open avenues.
When Newton was writing text introducing newtonian laws he kinda skipped over defining or explaining time. Einstein did a whole of more of defining what he means and those details turn out to be somewhat relevant for the content. I wouldn’t be that surprised if the textbook on Quantum Gravity would require/introduce even finer distinctions. The more fundamental a thing is the more interest it is to know it very thoroughly. Believing in absoluteness of simultaneuity is pretty simple. But in order to appriciate relativity of simultaneity you have to appriciate the complexity and the details.
The default outcome of “I dunno,a complete mystery” is better at an explanation task. We also don’t want a teleological “because” but a “base nature implies” because.
Logic like “Why there would be an appearance of a god, if not because god exists?” and “Why there would be appearance of red surfaces, if not for colors existing in the world?” are misleading. Surfaces being selectively reflective for different electromagnetic radiation is by itself not that reflective which proportion of creatures are blind, monochromats, dichromats, trichromats or tetrachromats. And especially the edge case of there being colored light beams but all creatures being blind breaks the required implications.
I couldn’t come up with a direct example that would block that specific property from propagating but I did have a good example of a different property definetely getting blocked.
If smooth physical time doesn’t lead into smooth psychological time why would flowing physical time lead into flowing psychological time?
I was thinking of fields. I am doing a pretty bad math sin (atleast for the context) on not being precise and referring to the right target with “distributes over the other”. It is too foggy in my mind, I faintly recall something about being able to project + structures into * via something, but is wasn’t as straighforward and trivial than I thought.
While there migth have been at various point paid various amounts of attention on which things should be named and which should not be I doubt that it is completely reconstructible from anonymising everything and building it back again. A thing being named is somewhat sticky and will probably push back to outstay its welcome partly because of terminological inertia. A significant reason why we call things we call them is that other know what we are referring to and that it is customary.
I am a bit hazy what I am hesitant about. My threat model generates that things could be worse in the form that ring multiplication might have a different word from field multiplication which could have a different word than archimedian field multiplication. And there is a way trying to understand “group has two operations that distribute over each other” which can try to get rid of having multiplication and addition as separate entities.
If one does this too much the result it so abstract it is hard to get a handle on. But on the other direction naming every single quirk forms a zoo where it is hard to see patterns and systems.
It seem a lot of times if I bother too look up what is the “definition” of a thing it ends up being a list of 5 or so axiom like things. And there is about 10-15 of axiom types or axioms that appear them. BUt the trouble is that the different combinations that appear make a combinatorial explosion. And then some people think you should be able to connect names to those definitions as a “shorthand”.
I think founding the arrow on the exsistence of a deeper arrow would be relatively more straightforward but there would be some things to show but they might not be philosophically that fundamental. Like a lot of computers are built on a clock cycle model where they transition from state to state in jumps. But the underlying physics is probably smooth. So the computer infrastructure choices effectively screen off times fluidity (builds discrete time out of smooth time). So one can’t rely that all aspects will translate in full force to all emergence below where the conditions to get a psychological arrow could make meaningful borders.
One could a group of functions like F(x)=a+bx . If we think this as one function that is altered and say taht over time a changes value. However for each instanteous state of the function (for a given value of a) the only sense that the function is “growing” is that +x is big and -x is small. Given a fixed value of a it is not possible to know whether a moment before a was bigger or smaller. So flowing physical time can failt to give raise to flowing psychological time. Another version of this would be “we have always been at war with Oceania”. It not a given that a system accurately tracks historic information even if it refers to times other than present.
That is kind of interesting as the mapping happens differently for my mind.
To me the gender issues would map to the animal issue by there being some grandpas being essentialists and upon noticing that dolphins breathe would try to strand them while spouting something to the effect of “get out of the water, you are truly a mammal and you belong to land”. This would be silly, bad for dolphin health and the sense of “there is an error in the world” that the grandpa might try to alleviate with their actions is misplaced. It would be proper to say to them “Grandpa stop trying to take fish out of the ocean”.
I haaate mathematical terms that are used isolatedly about one thing. It leads to expanding your concept-namespace by 300 for reading a single page of mathematics.
Interestingly regarding the first paragraph in the perspecitve that outcome is not a neccecity. It is not a given that time is 1D. Not every time dimension needs to be ontological time.
Say that you produce a movie that has a plot that takes place in 2020-2024. Say that the production of the movie happens 2019-2021. Then say at 2022 a censor demands a change to make it more morally acceptable. Even if we remove the “24 fps” time then pre and post censor still makes sense.
If we try to import “surrounding time” in our models we usually fail to do it in one jump. What is more usual that we continually import it in a way that we expect to be compatible with the future. On the set of the movie if you have film roll, the roll of the film is changing. It goes from totally empty to having more and more of the pictures burned in.
If the underlying physics doesn’t have an arrow of time then one could suspect that maybe there is a brain design which would not have a psychological arrow of time. I guesss reversible computing comes with he property that whatever operations one makes the reverse sequenced of them also makes sense. In that kind of world you can’t tell from the data itself whether you are in the beginning or the end. Whether it is easy to slip in an irreversible step or whether the system would strongly move away from irreversible features doesn’t matter that much for what kinds of things are possible while maintaining reversibility.
With flowing I refer to the distinction on what effect time has on the system vs the system depicting time. And to that one can directly feel only a very limited span of time. As one lives one very soon one enters a mental state one was not in before. You have one mental state in one moment and in the next moment you will have a new one. If the later states don’t have clues in them about what the previous states were one would be lost about temporal position as if in a labyrinth where one can only see the local environment but not the global one. But the memory bits are not subject to time in the same way as a clock tick pushes towards the next computation step.
Psychological arrow of time is taking a different stance towards the future as opposed to past. It might be nice to try to explain but the arrow itself is this assymetry.
A brain might try to recall the past but it won’t try to recall the future. You can predict the future but one seldom predicts the past. Similarly with goal oriented behaviour one can try to become a good person, one less frequently tries to have been a good person.
One can think of it as contents of mind being a comic strip and the panels containing a snapshot of the “primary information”. However all the panels exist at the same time. Imagine the flowing process to be to destroy the leftmost panel and generate a new right panel. The panel migth get vandalised during its lifetime and would give a inaccurate representation of the “pictured” state. However “timeline as it appears right now” can be impressed instantly. If multiple pictures were vandalised simultanouesly then it could infact be vdery hard to detect. But the objects in the pictures are likely to display temporal inertia, looking at object in one picture is likely to tell and restraint a lot about what might be gooing on with the corresponding object in an adjacent panel. And this comparsion doesn’t depend on whether it is carried out instantly or over a long period of time. Comic strips are completely frozen yet have a timeline in them.
I am not super creeped out by this.
The example of dolphins didn’t seem central to the general dynamics what the claim was about. “nitwit games” is a description of a logic you can’t follow that you want to mock. The tree article made sense to me how a dolphin-fish carving would work. One of the virtues is to say “oops” and go on, this does make the mistakes more “stealthy”.
I don’t like the bashing of ways of thinking so spewing hatred that way or this way is pretty passee anyway. One can be consistent in being against random fences and being for principled fences and call for a fencde to be taken down. But later learn that there was actually a principle and functioning of laying it down. Then it becomes an issue whether the original principles were better or worse than the new proposed principles. How long must one search before it starts to bereaosnable to treat the fence as purposeless?
I think I would welcome reflection on how being mocky by surface examination is/was a bit misleading. There surely are a lot of biases and illusions but human brains try so assuming basic competence would give a somewhat favorable prior that a lot of words have some sensible structure in them. That some of them are pretty transparent and some are pretty obscure but that doesn’t make it constructive to judge all obscure things by their apperance.
The bit about “music our ears are not hearing” brings back strong memories about building echolocation in me. Part of the surpise of it is/was that it is not about receiving more sound but rather interpreting what you constantly do get. Doing the hoops made for a cool subjective experience in me but I don’t have a pathway to induce that in others. However despite/inaddition to being cool it could also be categorised as phenomological progress which could be a neglected category of value. Is there any way to explain to a blind man why it would be good to be able to see? Is it?
Invisible tragedies might include understanding human variance as erroring on one central design on how the brain is “supposed to” work. I guess thered is somewhat of an awareness that neurodivercity might be a positive force. But kind of bridging these two ideas, humans naturally learn stereoscopic colorvision and bats naturally leans echolocation. Humans left without instruction might or might not pick up on written language. If sensory modalities can be expanded by training then there would be a category comparable to alexic people, aspatial people that can’t see beyond corners.
If a facistic dictatorship would only allow people of a certain haircolor or lineage to live that would seem unacceptably oppressive. Yet society effectively supports only 1 neurotype.
I see a difference in that burocrazy is not allowed to interfere with peoples treatment but it is allowed to interfere research.
Given that SCREENING ONLY labels are not followed having more of those guidelines would not alter patients care. By making such requirements it might give raise to an illusion or image that the care has certain properties.
The doctors ar effectively operating under the collar of science without actually applying science. With greater adherence we would either get pushpack to follow less scientific advice to the level where it is practical or treatment would grind to a halt.
With some other processss we don’t only care that they are possible, we want them to be smooth. Having high rigour and high practicability is a big value conflict. Most conditions are mysterious to most people so being able to justifiably know is more concretely valuable. This would predict that if general awareness of the existence of mental health conditions increases then efficiency of care could start to outshine rigour.
An attic runner has likely a very personal connection to the detainee.
They also have better information control and likely include a lot more persuasion in elicting cooperation from the detainee. It is easier to contain a person if they think it would be shameful for them to run loose.